Like when little Bert put Jensen on the LTIR? Everyone on the forum was for it. Trying to make an impression and a name for himself. Go back a few years. probert, kocur, grimson all practiced fighting. Tommy hearns used to box Mccarty lapointe etc..... There are tryout videos online of McKee fighting others in the USHL tryout camp. Every player has to play their game to earn a spot. You do what you have too to make it.

Very simple: yes you do what you have too to win the job.

Just to disprove your outlandish, and idiotic comments:

Said Tyler: “I just don’t want to run a vet. I’ll still play hard, but I’m not going to do something stupid.”

Can you please elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at. For the context of my post, see the post that I quoted. I was merely saying that the demands of dekeyser's agent have no bearing on the team's decisions, unless those demands were in the contract. I wasn't referring to Tatar or Nyquist at all. I think it is inexcusable for either of them to not be regulars on the team.

I was mostly saying we are thin on defense, and can't afford to lose him. It's no secret that goose is in gr because of slow vets that shouldn't be playing, who are also causing Tatar and Tootoo to be healthy scratches

My answer to this topic: If said young talented player would no longer like to skate on the ice in GR uniform and be on a bus headed out of town, then yes, it would be perfectly fine to speak out against their employers philosophies.

I agree I thought last year was the perfect mix of veterans and youngsters with the forward group.
Youngsters together on the third line playing against other teams third pairing D makes a lot of sense to me and it seemed to work out well.

Maybe too many youngsters on the defensive corps

It's kind of strange. I think we would benefit from more youngsters on offense, like the third line of Nyquist Andy and Tatar, but last year I think we would have benefited in the playoffs with the veteran experience of Ian White over the inexperience of young Smith.
Yes Babcock chooses opposite. Hmm.

I agree. One of the reasons the Wings even made the playoffs was because of the play of Brunner, Andersson, Nyquist, and Tatar. But it wasn't the Wings' plan to have them in the lineup (except Brunner, who was a low-risk gamble). So, as a thank-you to those players, Andersson gets saddled with 2 corpses for linemates, Tatar gets a seat in the press box, Brunner gets some black added to his uniform (NJ, where he has 3G/1A in 4GP but is a -3), and Nyquist isn't even in the league right now. Nice reward, eh?

At some point, leaving a player in the AHL becomes counterproductive. The AHL game is noticeably slower than the NHL game. There's only so much you can learn there. You cannot adjust to NHL play in the AHL. Andersson, Nyquist, and Tatar all showed very well in the NHL last year, showed they were ready for regular NHL duty. Brunner also proved he can play in the league. Why was that not good enough for Holland and Babcock?

Are there better defensive players than Brunner, Tatar, and Nyquist? Yes. But defensive awareness comes with experience, which you can only get with experience. You have to play. In the NHL. Was Yzerman a good defensive player in the first half of his career? NO. The vast majority of NHLers aren't. It's not fair to expect that from rookies.

If anyone can explain to me the benefits (short-term and long-term) of playing Samuelsson, Cleary, and Bertuzzi over Nyquist and Tatar, please, go for it!

My answer to this topic: If said young talented player would no longer like to skate on the ice in GR uniform and be on a bus headed out of town, then yes, it would be perfectly fine to speak out against their employers philosophies.

Last year, when Babcock scratched Smith for a game and Smith said it was OK, Babcock got PISSED and told him, no, it's not OK, I want you to be upset about this... how is being stuck in Grand Rapids or the press box ***when you have proven that you are capable of playing in Detroit*** any different?

I agree. One of the reasons the Wings even made the playoffs was because of the play of Brunner, Andersson, Nyquist, and Tatar. But it wasn't the Wings' plan to have them in the lineup (except Brunner, who was a low-risk gamble). So, as a thank-you to those players, Andersson gets saddled with 2 corpses for linemates, Tatar gets a seat in the press box, Brunner gets some black added to his uniform (NJ, where he has 3G/1A in 4GP but is a -3), and Nyquist isn't even in the league right now. Nice reward, eh?

At some point, leaving a player in the AHL becomes counterproductive. The AHL game is noticeably slower than the NHL game. There's only so much you can learn there. You cannot adjust to NHL play in the AHL. Andersson, Nyquist, and Tatar all showed very well in the NHL last year, showed they were ready for regular NHL duty. Brunner also proved he can play in the league. Why was that not good enough for Holland and Babcock?

Are there better defensive players than Brunner, Tatar, and Nyquist? Yes. But defensive awareness comes with experience, which you can only get with experience. You have to play. In the NHL. Was Yzerman a good defensive player in the first half of his career? NO. The vast majority of NHLers aren't. It's not fair to expect that from rookies.

If anyone can explain to me the benefits (short-term and long-term) of playing Samuelsson, Cleary, and Bertuzzi over Nyquist and Tatar, please, go for it!

Somethings you were unaware of or simply forgot in your rant:

Tatar was in the AHL (tearing it up mind you) during the push for the playoffs at the end of the season. His last game with the Wings was 3/10.

The Wings offered Brunner basically the same offer he signed, but they offered it to him before Free Agency even began, and BRUNNER TURNED IT DOWN. Him not being here has nothing to do with Holland and Babcock!

Also the biggest reasons the Wings still made the playoffs was the TWO WAY play (yes offense and defense) of guys like Dats and Z, you know vets, and the other was the play of Howard.

Brunner scored 5 points in the month of April, you know the stretch run, in which a vet by the name of Dan Cleary had the same Point Total?

Nyquist put up 4 points in the month of April, the same as Flip, a vet who plays a two way game, yet was just let go for under performing and the money he wanted.

For contrast purposes Z had 13 points in April and Dats had 14.

So other than stating facts that are simply not facts and/or ignoring the contributions of the Vets, your post was spot on!

"The more I know about people - the better I like my dog." - Mark Twain

"A wise man once told me, ‘Don’t argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can’t tell who is who'." Jay Z, Takeover

"When I was looking for a captain, I wanted a guy with the Red Wings crest tattooed on his chest," said former Detroit coach Jacques Demers, who named Yzerman captain in 1986. "Steve Yzerman was that guy."

“Told him if he wasn't ultra-competitive he couldn't come here. If he didn't bring it every day he couldn't come here, because he was going to hate it if he didn't, dislike the coach and dislike playing here.

“It's real straightforward. If you don't do it right, you're not happy here." Babcock

Tatar was in the AHL (tearing it up mind you) during the push for the playoffs at the end of the season. His last game with the Wings was 3/10.

The Wings offered Brunner basically the same offer he signed, but they offered it to him before Free Agency even began, and BRUNNER TURNED IT DOWN. Him not being here has nothing to do with Holland and Babcock!

Also the biggest reasons the Wings still made the playoffs was the TWO WAY play (yes offense and defense) of guys like Dats and Z, you know vets, and the other was the play of Howard.

Brunner scored 5 points in the month of April, you know the stretch run, in which a vet by the name of Dan Cleary had the same Point Total?

Nyquist put up 4 points in the month of April, the same as Flip, a vet who plays a two way game, yet was just let go for under performing and the money he wanted.

For contrast purposes Z had 13 points in April and Dats had 14.

So other than stating facts that are simply not facts and/or ignoring the contributions of the Vets, your post was spot on!

Your points are valid, so please don't think I'm upset, but I can answer them:

-I know Tatar was in the AHL from March on. I was disappointed when he was sent back down. I thought when he was here, he was the 2nd best forward in the lineup behind Datsyuk. Tatar made something happen on most of his shifts. Few other guys were doing that at that time.

-Brunner did turn down a decent offer, yes. That's on him and his agent. I was disappointed that Holland didn't do more to keep Brunner, but giving away the farm would not have been a smart move.

-I said ONE OF the biggest reasons the Wings made the playoffs was the play of the young guys. One of. But a big one. Had they come up and not performed, this team would not have made the post-season. As it is, they made it on the last day, by one point. The #1 reason they made it was Jimmy Howard's play. He was rock-solid from about 3 weeks in until the very end. Team MVP, no question. Datsyuk's and Zetterberg's play and leadership were also huge.

-As for the points in April, that's fine. I'll still argue that the third line of Andersson, Brunner, and Nyquist was an important part of the Wings' making the playoffs and advancing as far as they did.

-Filppula DID underperform. He has every season but 2011-12. For all his talent, he should produce more than he does. I see he's off to a good start in Tampa... it'll be interesting to see how his season goes.

-Dan Cleary has been brutal for the last two years. Brutal. He had a good, productive playoffs, yes... but he's back to being brutal so far this year.

-I did not "ignore" the contributions of veteran players, my post was not meant to be a complete and total summary of last season. I was simply pointing out how some important parts of last year's team are being pushed aside at this time for players that I feel have less to offer.

Your points are valid, so please don't think I'm upset, but I can answer them:

-I know Tatar was in the AHL from March on. I was disappointed when he was sent back down. I thought when he was here, he was the 2nd best forward in the lineup behind Datsyuk. Tatar made something happen on most of his shifts. Few other guys were doing that at that time.

-Brunner did turn down a decent offer, yes. That's on him and his agent. I was disappointed that Holland didn't do more to keep Brunner, but giving away the farm would not have been a smart move.

-I said ONE OF the biggest reasons the Wings made the playoffs was the play of the young guys. One of. But a big one. Had they come up and not performed, this team would not have made the post-season. As it is, they made it on the last day, by one point. The #1 reason they made it was Jimmy Howard's play. He was rock-solid from about 3 weeks in until the very end. Team MVP, no question. Datsyuk's and Zetterberg's play and leadership were also huge.

-As for the points in April, that's fine. I'll still argue that the third line of Andersson, Brunner, and Nyquist was an important part of the Wings' making the playoffs and advancing as far as they did.

-Filppula DID underperform. He has every season but 2011-12. For all his talent, he should produce more than he does. I see he's off to a good start in Tampa... it'll be interesting to see how his season goes.

-Dan Cleary has been brutal for the last two years. Brutal. He had a good, productive playoffs, yes... but he's back to being brutal so far this year.

-I did not "ignore" the contributions of veteran players, my post was not meant to be a complete and total summary of last season. I was simply pointing out how some important parts of last year's team are being pushed aside at this time for players that I feel have less to offer.

The line of Brunner-Andersson-Nyquist was essential. They got the momentum going for the other lines, that in turn kept the momentum. Our 3rd line this year does nothing but kill momentum aside from Andersson, who looks kinda lost out there without any skill on his wings. So I'll back you 100% on that for sure. This year is sour.

With the OP, I didn't necessarily mean young talent in the Red Wings system.

I'm talking about young talent in ANY organization who looks back and publicly says, "I kind of dodged a bullet when Detroit didn't draft me. They're a top notch organization but so are the (insert good team here) or the (insert another good team here) and they reward their young talent better by not playing them in the minors longer than necessary."

Obviously that player will be wrong for saying such things publicly for everybody and their grandmother to hear but it's not exactly unimaginable.

On the one hand, we really do keep the kids down too long. But on the other hand...do we really keep them down too long? Isn't it fair to say that, for the most part, it's worked pretty well for our prospects, the team, the organization as a whole?

Look at, say, Jimmy. If memory serves, he took forever to really get a legitimate chance, right? Many outside the organization (fans, etc.) got to fearing he'd never make his way here. And now look at him. One of the best 'tenders in the world, no question. Which isn't to say he definitely wouldn't have become this good had he not been held down for so long. But I do feel it generally does more good than harm to the kids' development, this over-ripening approach.

I think the real problem right now is that Holland made some poor decisions regarding a few non-prospects (Sammy et al.), and now we've got some unnecessary roster-locks gumming up the works, clogging the pipeline.

Edited by Dabura, 11 October 2013 - 10:01 PM.

"If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!" - Kierkegaard

With the OP, I didn't necessarily mean young talent in the Red Wings system.

I'm talking about young talent in ANY organization who looks back and publicly says, "I kind of dodged a bullet when Detroit didn't draft me. They're a top notch organization but so are the (insert good team here) or the (insert another good team here) and they reward their young talent better by not playing them in the minors longer than necessary."

Obviously that player will be wrong for saying such things publicly for everybody and their grandmother to hear but it's not exactly unimaginable.

Why would young players on other teams randomly come out and bash Detroit?

On the one hand, we really do keep the kids down too long. But on the other hand...do we really keep them down too long? Isn't it fair to say that, for the most part, it's worked pretty well for our prospects, the team, the organization as a whole?

Look at, say, Jimmy. If memory serves, he took forever to really get a legitimate chance, right? Many outside the organization (fans, etc.) got to fearing he'd never make his way here. And now look at him. One of the best 'tenders in the world, no question. Which isn't to say he definitely wouldn't have become this good had he not been held down for so long. But I do feel it generally does more good than harm to the kids' development, this over-ripening approach.

I think the real problem right now is that Holland made some poor decisions regarding a few non-prospects (Sammy et al.), and now we've got some unnecessary roster-locks gumming up the works, clogging the pipeline.

It definitely worked for Howard, but I think in Smith's case, it has held him back. Babcock declared him "NHL-ready" in 2010, but it still took until what should have been the 2012-13 season for him to see regular duty. How much better would he be right now had he spent the first 20 games of 2011-12 paired with Lidstrom? Could he possibly have learned the same things in Grand Rapids as he would have here? Was signing Commodore a better option?

I think each prospect has a point where they plateau unless they move up to the next level. You can obviously promote a kid too soon and damage him, but you can also leave him in the AHL too long, he becomes too accustomed to that speed and level of play, and has trouble adjusting making the jump to the NHL. The trick is knowiing that point with each of your prospects.

I definitely agree that Holland's bad/unnecessary signings (Samuelsson, Bertuzzi, Cleary, Tootoo are on my list) have blocked the prospects and will hurt them in the long run.

It definitely worked for Howard, but I think in Smith's case, it has held him back. Babcock declared him "NHL-ready" in 2010, but it still took until what should have been the 2012-13 season for him to see regular duty. How much better would he be right now had he spent the first 20 games of 2011-12 paired with Lidstrom? Could he possibly have learned the same things in Grand Rapids as he would have here? Was signing Commodore a better option?

I think each prospect has a point where they plateau unless they move up to the next level. You can obviously promote a kid too soon and damage him, but you can also leave him in the AHL too long, he becomes too accustomed to that speed and level of play, and has trouble adjusting making the jump to the NHL. The trick is knowiing that point with each of your prospects.

I definitely agree that Holland's bad/unnecessary signings (Samuelsson, Bertuzzi, Cleary, Tootoo are on my list) have blocked the prospects and will hurt them in the long run.

He probably wouldn't have been paired with Lidstrom, as I cannot remember the last time a rookie was given top pairing minutes in Detroit. Chances are even if he had been on the team, he would have been given bottom pairing minutes and Lidstrom's effect on him would have been negligible. Just like it was negligible on Ericsson or Kindl or Quincey before them. You've got to remember that in 2011-2012 White was paired with Lidstrom (and looked very solid) and Kronwall and Stuart were the second pair. There's no way that Smith breaks into the top four on that team.

There's a tendency to believe that pairing someone with Lidstrom or Datsyuk or whomever will significantly aide a rookie's development, and it's largely b.s. Having those guys around to cover your mistakes doesn't make you less prone to making them, it just makes mistakes less costly. The only real developmental effect that playing with Datsyuk or Zetterberg or Lidstrom comes from teaching guys what it takes, in terms of preparation on and off the ice, to be successful at this level.

With or without Lidstrom, Smith would still make boneheaded plays...mostly because Smith is a bonehead. As I said, sticking him with someone who covers for him will make his mistakes less harmful, but it won't stop him from making them. That's what practice, experience, and playing in all situations is there for, and that's exactly why the Wings keep guys in the minors so long.

Edited by kipwinger, 12 October 2013 - 12:31 PM.

GMRwings: "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage. For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada. There's some US states where it's 16 as well.

If I was in Nyquist shoes this year I would've said something, especially after the Cleary singing. So if he would've said something I wouldn't mind at all.

I would think young guys would want to get paid NHL money for 1 or 2 years before it is determined they are not career NHL players and are career AHLers. There is that brief window for players that are on the bubble of becoming NHLers and getting paid NHL money. One organization might let you play in the NHL and make some decent money before it is obvious you won't make it. Well guess what? That organization just helped you gross over $1M in two seasons. While in an organization like Detroit, you will only get paid $130k over those two seasons before it becomes clear you won't make it.

For young players in that type of situation I would not want to be in an organization like Detroit.

He probably wouldn't have been paired with Lidstrom, as I cannot remember the last time a rookie was given top pairing minutes in Detroit. Chances are even if he had been on the team, he would have been given bottom pairing minutes and Lidstrom's effect on him would have been negligible. Just like it was negligible on Ericsson or Kindl or Quincey before them. You've got to remember that in 2011-2012 White was paired with Lidstrom (and looked very solid) and Kronwall and Stuart were the second pair. There's no way that Smith breaks into the top four on that team.

There's a tendency to believe that pairing someone with Lidstrom or Datsyuk or whomever will significantly aide a rookie's development, and it's largely b.s. Having those guys around to cover your mistakes doesn't make you less prone to making them, it just makes mistakes less costly. The only real developmental effect that playing with Datsyuk or Zetterberg or Lidstrom comes from teaching guys what it takes, in terms of preparation on and off the ice, to be successful at this level.

With or without Lidstrom, Smith would still make boneheaded plays...mostly because Smith is a bonehead. As I said, sticking him with someone who covers for him will make his mistakes less harmful, but it won't stop him from making them. That's what practice, experience, and playing in all situations is there for, and that's exactly why the Wings keep guys in the minors so long.

I think it would have done as much or more good than playing in GR. Had he been paired with Lidstrom, yes, Nick would have been covering up mistakes, but Smith would have had no better teacher correcting him on the bench, discussing every play, every situation, what to do, what not to do. If (when) it was determined Smith needed more GR time, he could have been sent back with some great experience to learn from. My biggest issue with the Wings' development of prospects is that they leave them in GR until the last possible moment, when they are out of waiver options, and chances are they have 15, 20 games of NHL experience as a 4th-line or 6th-D callup, they are not put in the situations where they will eventually be playing. Yes, I know the Wings claim they are competing for a Cup every year, so maybe they don't want to risk putting prospects on the ice, they'd rather bring in someone with tons of experience... but that's why they are in the situation they're in now, with an overcrowded roster and payroll, and their up-and-coming forwards in GR or the press box.

I am sort of torn here. We could be a team like the Oil and be on a 7 season playoff drought trying by trying to play all of our young kids or we can be like the wings and be on a 22 season playoff streak doing what we do. Don't get me wrong I would love to see some of our young players over the likes of Sammy and Cleary but with the success the wings have had with the way they have done things I don't see that changing any time soon. The young players still talk highly about the wings and how they are ran so I think its more us fans that have a problem with it then any of the players.

I think the key is balance. Some players you can rush, some players need or are at least are served better than others with more time to develop in the minors. I think it's more than fair to say that the Wings might be pushing it to the extreme end at this point, and oftentimes that does come back to haunt you, or at least cause you to field a weaker team. I think last year was a good example of that. We spent too much on mid-level guys that had no impact for one reason or another and our younger guys unexpectedly carried us further than anyone would've predicted. I would've like to have seen Holland trying to go this route for awhile but with intention, and instead of signing two mid-level guys to overpriced deals, sign one impact guy that will make those around him better and set an example for the kids.